On Friday 16 March 2012, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [Per] > >> The stedma40 filter function is not really specific for ux500. ux500 > >> use stedma40 but it should be possible to replace this DMA.IP with > >> some other DMA-controller. This is board specific configuration. You > >> should not need to change the mmci-driver just because the dma-driver > >> has changed, right? > >> Or will the board-configuration now be placed in mmci-ux500? > > > > Right, the DMA configuration does not really belong in there, but > > the voltage setup might (unless we convert that to the regulator > > setup). > > The voltage to power the card is already using the regulator > framework with the MMC-specific helpers in the MMCI driver. > > But I guess you're after modelling the levelshifter as a regulator? > > Basically the level shifter is a separate device has two voltage > inputs A and B (from other regulators) that is controlled by a > simple GPIO to select voltage A or B to drive the signals to > the card. > > That could probably be modelled as a regulator with two > volategs for sure, but then we should maybe create a more > generic "struct level_shifter_regulator" (or whatever) for the > concept as a whole. Ok, thanks for the explanation. > Let's page Mark about what to do with levelshifters and whether > they are regulators of sorts in his book. It does sound appealing, especially because this one could be done completely generically by defining a regulator that has a bunch of other regulators as well as a set of gpio lines as inputs and one output that can be used in other devices. We would probably only use this one together with device tree then. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
